The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to quash proceedings only when no offence is disclosed, requiring specific allegations against each accused.

ORDER :

Since both the criminal petitions arose out of the same crime number, there being disposed of by this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.7588 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners/A2 to A6, while Criminal Petition No.7506 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner/A1, challenging the proceedings in Crime No.190 of 2019 registered by the Alamuru Police Station, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354-A, 509, 211 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Amendment Act, 2015.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to the present petitions are that the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Alamuru Police Station, alleging that she is working as receptionist in Shanthi Children Hospital, Mandapeta and used to travel daily from her village Narsipudi to Mandapeta where she was working. While she is travelling from Narsipudi to Mandapet, she got acquaintance with one Vasireddy Peddayya, who is A1 in the present crime, and used to talk frequently. After some time, the Peddayya told her that he would get good job for her in Sri Ram Finance and accordingly, he got appointed the de-facto complainant as Executive in Sri Ram Finance in gold loan section and later their friendship turned into a love affair. It is further alleged that as A1 wanted to establish a business and was searching for finance, the de-facto complainant got the loan sanctioned for A1 from Sri Ram Finance in the name of Matta Raju and Veera Venkata Satyanarayana by certifying the rold gold articles as gold articles for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- at the instance of A1, but later, the said amount was not paid, because of which, the Sri Ram company recovered the same from the 2^nd respondent/de- facto complainant and also removed her from the company. Apart from that the de-facto complainant also gave an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- to A1 and later she developed physical relationship with A1 and used to spend more time with him at the house of one Jangam Saraswathi at Pulagurta, which was noticed by one of the relatives of Dekkapati Surya Prakasa Rao, who reported the matter to the parents of the de- facto complainant and raised a dispute in the presence of elders on 25.07.2019, for which all the accused threatened and undertook to settle the issue within one month. Later, when the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant raised an issue regarding her marriage with A1, they refused for the same and abused her in filthy language by using her caste name. On 15.10.2019 when she came to the house of one Challa Subrahmanyam and raised an issue for a marriage, the petitioners refused for the same in the presence of Challa Subbaiah, Nekkanti Rayudu (Bujji), Bunga Sanjay, Lanka Mutyala Rao, Kosana Chinna, Pasalapudi Krishna Murthy Chirra Srinivas and offered to pay compensation of Rs.25 lakhs and handed over the promissory notes, cheques and documents. But however, failed to pay the said amount of Rs.25 lakhs as per their promised period of 15 days and thereby cheated her. Hence, the complaint.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a perusal of the contents of the complaint would not reveal the ingredients of the sections under which the crime was registered. No specific allegations attributed against the petitioners, in the absence of which, continuation of crimin